About your Search

20121226
20130103
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25
not arrive in your lifetime. why do this because you're dead companion had lured you into science. in science is deliberate parenting. nonstop hurricane. according to the book in her lap, the first two rules are number one, the truth at any price, including the price of your life and number two, look at things as though you've never seen him before. then proceed from there. look at things that everyone takes for granted and then see what you learn. so the next big question will be more important than the next answer. new questions can produce scientific links. insights that nine years later, a guy we'll call for a pure and i'm sure. it becomes your mission. finding the question that will produce the next big perception. an unfolding this point that will allow others to radically pursue how did god get into the picture? the bar mitzvah is coming up in your 12 years old. your dad is going through a party for all the kids that you know, all the kids who humiliate you three quarters of a mile from your home. this time you are invited. yes, you are invited and this is the first time you will atten
. and now the question is, with running science in order to expand science which is what i have done, then okay, now the normal credentialing process to take it seriously. [inaudible] >> to bring everything back down a little bit to the pragmatic, i don't have a science background but i am a political science -- and i was struck with the wave in the comparison of it with the stock market which is hanging around in the back of my head, and i haven't read it yet but the idea of lots of discrete entities doing things, creating something larger with or without people, with or without that intention of creating something larger. is this already being done, to apply this to policy say you know okay we want to do this. we are doing it this way but it's not working or all of these actions we are taking are somehow creating this other thing that we haven't even thought about. i feel like there could he and education, sort of guide to how we would put recruitment strategies or how to use them as a tool in other fields? >> i think you're absolutely right in that is why had done this thing up di
reproduction system. [laughter] a lecture by tied a can and a member of the house committee on science and technology is the guy than there was a theory that on me just was not a good candidate and did not connect very well and was somewhat awkward. remember when he went to michigan and said trees were the right to heighth. the actual quote was a love this state. it seems right that the trees are the right height. [laughter] away from here i find no trees in that please. no trees as such a perfect height as these. can never be at ease with trees that grow higher than one's knees or too high to splinter in the breeze. wisconsin can have their bragging rights on cheese and colorado is where you take your skis and connecticut as lyme disease. [laughter] and another visa my prepared to sneeze but here we have the perfect height of trees. [applause] according to that theory romney was not a good candidate they should have been nominated somebody else. also a theory there were demographically behind and did not understand the people they were appealing to was no longer in the majority i trie
and ph.d. from science from this institution, and a and philosophy from the hebrew university in jerusalem and a b.a. in english literature from swarthmore college. norman podhoretz, who i feel silly introducing these people would still, have to. norman paul ha'aretz served as editor-in-chief from commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995, and as the current editor-at-large. he was awarded the presidential medal of freedom by george w. bush. he served as a senior fellow with hudson institute, and he was a senior fellow and is the author of many books and articles including the bush doctrine, with the president said, and what it means in world war iv, the longest struggle against the islamofacism coming and why are jews liberals which for the new criterion is really entitled why are jews still liberals? she was a pulitzer prize scholar at columbia university where he earned his bachelor's of arts in 1950, and he also holds a bachelor's and master's degree from cambridge university england where she was a fulbright scholar and a fellow. in addition he has a bachelor's degree in hebr
.d. in political science from this institution, a master's in philosophy from the hebrew university of jerusalem and a d.a. in english literature from swarthmore college. i feel sort of silly introducing these people because everyone knows who they are, but still, i have to. serve as the editor in chief of commentary magazine from 1960- 1995, and is their current editor at large. he was awarded the presidential medal of freedom by george w. bush. he served as a senior fellow at the hudson's -- hudson institute and was a senior fellow and is the author of many books and articles, including the bush doctrine, what the president said, and what it means, world war four, the long struggle against islamic fascism, and why are jews liberals, which is a reviewer for the new criterion said should really have been titled, why are jews still liberals. he was a pulitzer prize scholar at columbia university where he earned his bachelor of arts in 1915, and he also holds a bachelor's and master's degree from cambridge university, england, where he was a fulbright scholar and a cut fellow. in addition he has a
that is what we try to challenge. a report card last year but also to look at math and science with high-school seniors show proficiency in u.s. history. that the report said only 2 percent can explain what brown feet board of education was about even though it was implicit our kids don't know much history. what they do know is wrong. it is based on the work of greater science. but we have a big sweep because we could couple this with the showtime documentary to make it more dramatic. >> just like a basic text history 101. these books are not coherent. there is no pattern. we don't understand how that works. to some degree the united states always comes out ahead or okay. >> if you take if the chinese history. >> to see it through the other rise in? >> but he said with gap what we said looks to the russians obamacare has some of that ability. >> talk about obama. your chapter is entitled provocatively. [laughter] in some ways they've made it worse. >> the longest chapter of the book. >> it might get longer. >> then i see the cuts that we have to make but to deal with a contemporary is a
to everybody, and this is -- science shows us, you look at the stars tonight, and you live in manhattan, so you probably won't be able to see a star, but imagine when you look up and see a star, think hundreds of billions of light years away, and many of the stars you are looking at are gone. they no longer exist, and the billion of years the light takes to get to you, the star is actually gone, but the energy and life is immuneble and goes on forever. people, generations yet unborn feel the warmth and light of that body. that's who we are. we may have a finite time on earth, but every day, have a determination to burn as bright, warm, and brilliant as possible. that's the challenge. ultimately, the change makers are never the elected officials or the names read in history. this country has been fueled because of a conspiracy love. we don't know the names of the people, but they're the ones today that we benefit. i'll end, but my father, who i talk about in the book, had colorful things to say about me as i kid. he grew up in poverty, and i grew up in relative privilege. he said, boy, don't loo
on nonfiction selection. these titles were included in the "christian science monitor"'s 15 best books of 2012-nonfiction. >> for an extended list of links to various
. >> host: political science professor steven frantzich, the most recent book "oops: observing our politicians stumble," i had to double check that. how many books have you written? what's the topics? >> guest: well, this is 17 of original books, start counting the second editions, it's 27, but always lie with statistics. i started out all academic, time in the trenches, doing academic books, textbooks, last five or six books are more fun kinds of books. the one just prior to this, i did one called honored guests profiling all of the people, the presidents mentioned in the state of the union message. today, we're used to that, a president pointing up and using it somewhat as app example. that was not done until roomed reagan did it for the first, you know, for the first time, and every president since then used the people as an example of their political goals and their sorts of philosophies so i had fun with that one. close to home, i did a bigg of brian lamb. i did work, and they said what is the real brine lamb like? he did not want a biography done. i pumped him and pumped him,
. whatever, science, history, it's all going to be harder. maybe you can get through math without reading and maybe not. with the kids can't read well, some of them will not get through high school. if your kids can't read well, their choices and opportunities in life will be limited. they're not going to have as many choices. but the cool thing about books, the really terrific thing is that there are so many really good books out there for them to read. right here the at the book fair, there are a lot of looks that really absolutely -- to your kids. "harry potter," a turkic series, wimpy kids, terrific illustrations. books about sports. fine, if you have boys let them read anything. comic books, great, graphic novels, sports, almanacs certainly, cook books, why not? as long as they are reading because they will get better at it. who love soccer? yeah would love soccer. are you better now? how come? we play a lot. the same with reading. if you read more, you get better at it and it gets each year. you read better books. you have something that -- so i would love you all to get that into y
is an unabashed liberal but she is also on tv but she has a ph.d. in something, political science or something and charles murray would not want to be called a pundit. he is famous for controversy over the bell curve. this looks at white working-class to try to separate class from race which complicate everything and he looks at how the values of the lower white working class of gone down. there is this white elite adopted middle-class value, the working class lost those, a complex argument, advanced two places to describe these things. it is interesting, it is more than somebody ranting and raving. >> a scholar with the american enterprise institute as well, probably not fair to call him a political pundits. what about glen beck? he launched his own imprint, but his fox show is off the air. can you see the result of his sales? >> as far as i can tell glyn back, what he has been doing since he left fox has been trying to build a brand that reaches of very dedicated community not only through satellite oriented radio show but a new site called the blaze and other things going on through his web
of standing at the intersection of the arts and sciences. whenever you see him to a product launch back in the period of the ipod, the ipad and the iphone de ended with a picture on the screen as the art, the liberal art street intersection with the scientist st.. and i realize there was a common theme with feinstein -- feinstein and benjamin franklin. it was a creativity is not necessarily just being smart, because those of you here probably know a lot of smart people coming and you know that smart people are dying of dozen. they don't amount to much but it's an innovative, creative and imaginative person who inset thinking different as steve what say and amounting to something in the bill was the common thread of the different people that i had written about so i got excited about a rare opportunity to be really up close to somebody that had transformed our world to be able to spend a day after day and hour after hour with him to be able to try to write a story that looked at creativity, innovation and beauty. so what i would like to do today i hope what we in louisiana call a little
the sciences and humanities, which i don't think should be separated but often are, and let with other colleagues and researchers and create interesting collaborations. thank you so much. perhaps very appropriately, the great new zealand bibliographer donald francis mackenzie said if you know how to read it, every book is alive with the judgment of its maker. in the business of bibliography is learning how to read the human presences in every recorded task. and i think that we have certainly seen an example of how to recover those human judgments. those human presences through a capacious and db2 learned every article. he's he is the author of eight novels, two values in 10 volumes of essays in as many articles as some of our nations finest journals. a past deputy chairman of the national endowment for the humanities, he is the recipient of a national book critics circle award red the guggenheim and even a rock rockefeller award. when you think about his work in cytogenetics. i'm not entirely sure, but i'm sure that he can inform us about the nature of fiction, the book, and the future
she has a ph.d. in something. political science i think and i think charles murray would be gummy probably would not want to be called the pundit. he is famous for the controversy over the bell curve but this is a book that looks at the white working class and looked at the white working class to try to separate class from race which complicates everything and he looks at how the values of the lower white working class has gone down hill and there is this sort of white elite adopts a middle-class and sort of a complex argument. he goes to two places to describe these things. is inching and provocative book so more than someone is ranting and raving. >> host: and of course -- with the american enterprise institute so not fair to call him a political pundit. what about glenn beck? he launched his own imprint but his flock show is off the air. can you see the results in his sales? >> guest: as far as i can tell, glenn beck, what he has been doing since he left fox's has been really trying to build a brand that reaches a dedicated community not only through satellite oriented radio sh
to be a lot tougher than it needs to be. whatever, science, history will all be harder. maybe you get to nap without reading and maybe not. if your kids can't read well, some of them will not get through high school. if your kids can't read well, choices and opportunities in life will be limited. they're not going to have as many choices. but the cool thing about looks, the great and terrific thing is there's so many really good books out there for them to read. there's a lot of books that will absolutely blow the minds of your kid. you know, harry potter, terrific series. when the kids come and terrific illustrations. books about sports, fine. if you have boys, let them read anything. , looks, great, graphic novels, almanacs, cut books, share, why not. as long as they are reading because to get better at it. i'll go to schools and say who play soccer? who love soccer? the outcome of the. you better know? would play a lot. same with reading. he read more, get better at it. it gets easier. you read better books. you have something that you love. so i though the will to get that in your hands
, should we think more about it. should we think more about the science about it. they are saying that we should spin off more great technology. it's another great competition. >> i love the change in mr. webb a year later. the president is basically asking, is this a top priority. and he said oh, absolutely. [laughter] >> i think he also asks how else it can be done. is there a way of doing this. perhaps this shifts from kennedy's own cold war. >> part of what i want to understand, if this meeting is taking place about a year and a half after the state of the union speech, here it is a year and a half later, and the government isn't really on board. and you think, my god. >> i can confirm that that is often the case. but the written document i've seen on display in this library, why is it being done right now? what we do in the next 24 hours. he really was on it. but i think it's worth pointing out that in 1963, which it was a very different year from 1962. but the cold war had calm down a big notch after the cuban missile crisis. and khrushchev and kennedy were working closely together
approach. i mean, it's not rocket science to see that we have a democratic senate, a republican house and a democratic president, and that's going to be the same starting january 3 of next year for at least two more years. so we know what we're dealing with, and i think it affects us right now in the fiscal cliff negotiations because we are not going to do anything unless it is bipartisan. we will not be able to pass anything in the house that doesn't have significant republican votes in the senate, and the democrats in the senate are not going to be able to support something that won't require some votes of democrats in the house. so we are together, maybe it's like a dysfunctional family, but we do have to work together because without bipartisanship, nothing is going anywhere. therefore, i think you have to go back to negotiations 101. which is that someone in a negotiation has to win some and lose some. the other party in a negotiation has to win some and lose some. the president is not going to get everything he wants. the republicans in the house and senate are not going to get
this freakish weather and all the sciences is so overwhelming about claimant count yet you don't see on the nightly news. is there a story that you wanted to grab by the scruff of the neck during her tenure at abc and say, we've got to cover this more? >> there were several. we would have discussions about. one of them was the environment and how we covered the environment. and every time we try to do a primetime special environment we wouldn't get a rating. that led, it's one of the chapters i write about, what i do not come across well. we had leonardo dicaprio india president clinton. we got killed for it. we did a primetime environmental special, and he was chairman of earth day that you and i thought he would just make an appearance. i got killed for. that was an attempt to try to cover the environment in a serious way and drive an audience. i was concerned, frankly, about our terrorism coverage. we did more terrorism coverage than others did before 9/11. jon miller went in and interviewed bin laden, trekked into the mountains in afghanistan and interviewed him. we get a primeti
how far advanced they've been in the sciences. the chinese religion to today did flirt with communism for a number of years, but they turned it became capitalists because basically they are all from the cultures of creativity. so i agree with you. one which i forgot to mention was the cicada craze of the religion with christianity when the slaves went to the americas and found themselves being banned from studying and following their religion. they say yes master, we won't follow the old religion, but they just substituted the same for their deities. so until today you'll find shock of the, shall coup, one of the ceiling fan rbd at the candles, et cetera, et cetera. they went through that cicada craze and even evolved to mean simply created images of their deities and stylized mode so that they could claim that this figure stood for the same because that is how accomplished they were creating to human beings. until today you find this a credit freeze existing, but also there is another phase, which is very, very prominent, where there was a revolt that was christianity, go away. and t
breakfast the washington correspondent for the christian science monitor. and he has this regular meeting with politically important people bunch of reports and stuff, and they raise the issue of the rumors of bill's philandering, and hilary says, i want you to know we have had trouble in our lives as married couples. we love each other. we believe in each other, i love my husband and we're going stay together for the rest of our lives. and they are blown away by her commitment. what they don't know and what neither of the clintons know it's a dress rehearsal. because nine months later when bill is soaring in the polls and almost on top of paul in new hampshire primary, the senator for massachusetts next door city, at the moment jennifer flowers says she's had a twelve-year love affair with bill clinton and has the tape recordings to prove it. hilary steps in immediately and takes over, and before you know it, they are doing a repeat of the breakfast only doing it on sixty minute after the super bowl, the largest tv viewing audience you can imagine and they are magnificent and hillary is
they normally wear. it was just like a science-fiction moment. it's like, what happened to all the men? i became curious about that. because i am a reporter, you know that once you get an idea in your head and you really can't let go. as a friend of this woman in the supermarket, her name was bethany, i bumped into her and started talking. i said, what's up? are you married? she was not married. though she had a daughter. and she began to talk to me about the guy was the father of her daughter and how -- she herself was working, she was going to school to become a nurse, she was raising a child and she began to talk about things in a disparaging way. which is well we don't live with calvin because he would be another mouth to feed. that was her argument. of course, she and i had a sisterhood bonding at that moment. but i wanted to know who calvin lies. so i got his phone number and calvin and i started at become friends. what happened to these men? what's going to happen to them? i don't know if you know that old ladies home journal column, can this marriage be saved, where you try to figure out
to continue to be the magnet for the intellectual property of the world. we want to be the science and technology ?oaftors -- innovators that will continue to fuel our economy. it's just how we get there that causes the disagreement. we have patriotic people who have been elected. i hope for the next two years we will put aside the partisan politics, put aside the thoughts of future elections, and try to solve the big issues of our time. because there's a lot of intelligence in this body, there's a lot of ability to come together. and i just keep the abiding faith that our messy democracy will, in fact, prevail because i can't think of going to anything else. and as long as we can function and show the world that we can govern as we disagree, that will be the example that will forever make our country the best and hopefully be a model for others to not think you have to take to the streets, not think that you need guns to have the government that you want but to show that peaceful transition can be done and also that we can have a lot of discussion, a lot of disagreements, but we c
the ied. we've wasted the science of dollars in counter ied technologies. you have some, but the last week to stop is to talk to the locals, to do so many patrols that they know you're coming through. in that debt during the surge we had these outposts all over the place. remember talking to one unit. when we come on a time, use war bombs are planted the night before. they are showing us. so we tend to look for technological solutions when we should not. the second thing is we tend to look at the upside of technology because for americans. we don't think about the consequences and i think there's a real pattern of consequences that we don't recognize. i was talking to some staff officers after the anaconda battle in the predator feed coming in during the battle and one colonel discussed discussed with her today, due to a predator free this? crack for generals. but it goes to a point, when you're not thinking strategically, when you're a general who strained his a battalion commander, who thinks the be-all and end-all is doing off the national training center, then if you don't bowhunter be
to become its director. he began at oxford in the junior position in law and social science of what he wrote to the ranks about the institution to become a tech executive. the cultural nature of human development, the accidental gorilla, peggy pascoe's book on law and race in america. daniel walker and his history of america between 1815 and 1848. ladies and gentlemen, niko pfund. anna. >> thank you very much for coming here. for listening to us talk friday afternoon. i'm so that we chose to spend your afternoon with us. i have spent 10 years working for a library in and spent about half of that time physically working in a library. as a director of nyu press, i am thrilled to be here and to talk to you about publishing. i was asked to give you a quick overview of our philosophy. it sounds a little pretentious, but i would say that in terms of how i look at what we do, it is squarely driven by the message of oup. we often say that we don't exist to make money, but we do have to make money to do the things that we exist to do. it really doesn't want form all the work that we engage in. perso
political affiliations accept the science behind climate change. yet congress refuses to act. there is a consensus among scientists somewhere around 98% -- i came the other day with a graph that showed -- it was a circular graph and the tiny little wedge of fringe dispute on this question is barely visible in the sea of agreement. and yet congress refuses to act. even after hearing from our national security officials about the dangers and threats from climate change, congress refuses to act. well, that refusal to act will have an impact on the american economy. a brookings report has found that well-designed climate legislation would increase investment, increase employment, and significantly increase america's gross domestic product. but here in congress, you're more likely to hear that any climate change legislation would hurt the economy and kill jobs. the opposite is true. we are missing opportunities to grow a clean economy that is manufacturing and export intensive and that creates the kind of jobs that support a strong american middle class. we are failing to protect
Search Results 0 to 24 of about 25